If you’ve been reading the science news lately, you’ll find there has been a lot of buzz about “extrasolar planets”, or “exoplanets” (i.e., planets that orbit other stars). For an example, see here. The reason why is in the last several years, the number of exoplanets that we’ve discovered has increased dramatically, mostly due to the Kepler mission. But regardless of the reason why, one interesting question this brings up is, “Are there other planets that host life?”

This is an incredibly profound question for both the religious and non-religious alike. For the Christian, the knee-jerk reaction might be “no, of course not, God specially created the life on earth and did not do so elsewhere.” (By the way, I do not necessarily espouse this view.) For the secularist, the presence of life on other planets only adds weight to the idea that life arose here on earth by strictly naturalistic processes. So what does science have to say about this subject? Given the sensationalistic popular news articles, one might think the universe is teeming with alien life. However, the data actually say otherwise.

First, answering the origin of life question, from a scientific standpoint, is incredibly hard. In fact, after investigating the state of affairs on this problem in order to write a book, it has driven agnostic physicist Paul Davies to proclaim1:

When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life’s origin…Having spend a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding…This gulf’s not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.

He goes on to say:

Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled. There are two reasons for their unease. First they feel it opens the door to religious fundamentalists…Second, they worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding…

Second, even though it is a conceptually difficult phenomenon to study, scientists are incredibly confident that it will be resolved one day. The main reason why is that the alternative to having a naturalistic origin of life would be a supernaturalistic origin of life, something that most secular scientists not only do not believe in but also that they rule out completely according to their philosophical worldview.

Third, we now know that life on our planet originated in a geological instant. As soon as this planet became even remotely suitable for life, roughly 3.9-3.8 billion years ago, life began (our earliest evidence for life is between 3.86 and 3.80 billion years ago). To the secular scientist, this implies that even though we have no idea how, the origin of life must be a very simple, fast process.

Fourth, because the origin of life is simple and fast, it probably is not a finely-tuned process, according to the reasoning of secularism. In other words, all you need are some minimal requirements (liquid water, a rocky planet, some carbon-containing compounds, and a short window of time) and life will surely appear. This principle led astronomer Steve Vogt, upon discovery of a rocky exoplanet in the “Goldilocks zone” (the distance from their star that would allow a planet to potentially harbor liquid water), to state, “The chances for life on this planet are 100 percent.” (As an interesting sidenote, the particular planet he was referring to may not even be a planet. Of course, we are still discovering exo-planets, and I have been confident for some time that we would find a near-earth-sized rocky planet in the Goldilocks zone. And lo and behold, we have. For examples, see here and here.)

So, given this background, is it likely that such “Goldilocks planets”, which are likely to be all over the place in the universe, harbor life? Well, there are two sides to this story. As I laid out above, the popular secular point of view (and the point of view portrayed by the media) is that life is inevitable whenever loose conditions are met (background point four). So of course, whenever you have a planet in the Goldilocks zone, life is inevitable. This view springs solely from the assumption of naturalism (background point 2) and the fact that life arose on earth quickly (background point 3). You can easily see this point of view when reading the popular news articles, which are overflowing with unbridled optimism.

The other view is that life is rare in the universe, because all of the prowess of the origin-of-life scientific community has returned a comparatively small amount of promising data (background point 1). In fact, not only has little actual progress been made towards discovering naturalistic pathways towards origin of life, but instead the more we know the more we discover how far away we are. Problems such as the lack of a prebiotic soup, the irreducible complexity of life, the homochirality problem (all bio-molecules must be either 100% right-handed or 100% left-handed), the difficulty in producing a cell membrane, and the finely-tuned conditions needed to carry out the chemical reactions that produce biological precursors all reveal a much less optimistic story from the point of view of hard science.

The problems for the hypothesis of the naturalistic origin of life don’t stop there, however. The more we study our planet, the more we realize that an exoplanet needs a lot more going its way than just to be in the Goldilocks zone. There are a whole host of astronomical and geological parameters that must be exquisitely finely-tuned for life to (1) exist and (2) persist on a planet. The timing of the formation of the exosolar system, the location of the exosolar system within the galaxy, the type of galaxy the exosolar system is in, the elemental composition of the star and planet, and the existence of stable, long-lasting plate tectonics are just a few of the finely-tuned parameters that must be met for life to exist and thrive.

None of this is to say that we should not be investigating how life could have originated, or whether exoplanets may harbor other life forms. Indeed, if God did create the universe and life, I am convinced that these scientific disciplines will serve only to glorify Him further.

But these observations do beg the question: which is it? Is life abundant in the universe, a premise based on one data point and questionable assumptions, or is life rare, a premise based upon the empirical findings of the fields of biochemistry, organic chemistry, astronomy, and geology? It seems to me that hope springs eternal for the secular exoplanet researcher, but the hard scientific data tells another story.

Dr Greg Reeves holds a PhD in Chemical Engineering from Princeton University, and is currently an assistant professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at North Carolina State University. He is the co-director of the NC State chapter of Ratio Christi. His blog can be found at twobooksapproach.blogspot.com.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick has an MA in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. His interests include theology, philosophy of religion--particularly the existence of God--astronomy, biology, archaeology, and sci-fi and fantasy novels.

No, seriously, I honestly don’t think there would be life on other planets, from a naturalistic perspective, just because we’ve learned the requirements for life are so stringent. On the other hand, we are here, and God created us here, so it is entirely possible that the God who loves to create would also create life elsewhere. I’m not sure why He would (to show His glory, perhaps?).

What if we do find life elsewhere? What theological import would that have? I’m kind of ambivalent about that; I don’t think there’s enough biblical evidence to conclude one way or another what God may have done on other planets. Like I said, He is the God who loves to create, so who am I to say He didn’t?

Perhaps a more pertinent question is, did He create exoplanet life with the imago Dei, life that would need a Savior? I think Hebrews 10 makes the case that the Messiah would suffer only once. How would sinful life on other planets be redeemed, in that case?

I think that theologically, one could simply hold that Christ came to redeem the whole universe. I’m not sure that would be impossible with life on other planets. The incarnation seems to be fully capable of providing salvation for all, everywhere. It’s just something I’ve thought about.

That’s a great question. If I understand you correctly, and if I understand correctly which people you are referring to, they are basing their argument on the fact that life arose here very quickly: in a geological instant. This is the argument that, since life is here on planet earth, and it arose so quickly, then it must be very easy to have life originate. There must be very few constraints that must be met in order for life to arise. Usually the cited constraints are a rocky planet, the existence of liquid water, and some pre-organic carbon compounds (such as formaldehyde).

I would say that our knowledge of biochemistry, organic chemistry, geology, physics, and astronomy (to name a few of the pertinent hard sciences) tells us that the origin of life is actually extremely hard. From a naturalistic standpoint, this means that we are a fluke.

This second argument actually has more scientific and mathematical weight to it. Part of the reason is that those in the “life is necessary” camp are drawing strong conclusions from a single data point. N = 1. That’s bad statistics. In fact, a paper has been recently been published showing that, because we have only one data point, it’s almost as likely that we are a fluke as that life is necessary. And that is not counting the evidence from biochemistry, astronomy, etc. I imagine that if you count data from those fields, you will find that it is much more likely that we are a fluke (from a naturalistic standpoint).

If I may, I would like to recommend the book Rare Earth by Peter Ward (a paleontologist) and Donald Brownlee (an astronomer) who agree with the author’s comment above, that life is rare for naturalistic reasons.

Carneades atelic argument is that alll teleological arguments- from reason, to design, fine-tuning and probability beg the question of divine intent.Lamberth’s the teleonomic/atelic argument is that as science finds no intent behind natural forces, then to posit Him would not complement but contradict science, and still to do so would be to use the new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with apparent teleonomy-causalism- mechanism- by making evidence for Himself ambigous as John Hick’s eptistemic distance argument states in order not to override our freely coming to Him. No, teleonomy rules. Without that intent,per Lamberth’s teleonomic/atelic argument,He has no referents as Grand Miracle Monger, Creator and so forth and thus, He lacks existence! As He has contradictory,incoherent attributes, He lacks existence!
Fine-tuning has it backwards as the puddle argument notes: A puddle thinks that the hole was made for him, but no, the hole just happened and the rain just happened without intent.We evolved as one sequence led to others instead of God planning for us to evolve.
Ti’s such a whopping non-sequitur to whine that without divine intent, we’re purposeless,living absurdly according to Jean-Paul Sartre. No, ti’s such an insult to whine about not having a master to give us meanings and purpose! As he rightly notes, we have to make our own projects- meanings and purposes.
” Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate.” Inquiring Lynnhttp://morganlynn.posterous.comhttp://inquringlynn.wordpress.com
W.T,I recommend this blog in mine.
Rip: John Hick

JW, it looks like you closed off the comment thread where we were discussing the possibility of Christ-mediated redemption of extraterrestrial life, but in response, I would say I cannot directly disagree with your last point. But I would lean towards that not being the case, due to the ancient doctrine of (and I know I’m gonna get this wrong, but) “what is not assumed is not redeemed”. So Christ had to have a human nature and had to be truly human in order to redeem humanity. What do you think?

Not sure why those comments are blocked off. I must have clicked something and can’t undo it because I’m technologically inept.

Anyway, regarding the atonement. I’m not sure that I agree with the statement “what is not assumed is not redeemed.” Firstly, it would seem that we have souls. Jesus does not have the same soul as us, and therefore we would not be redeemed. I’m sure some modifications of the account could make it more clear, but there are a lot of holes in that phrase. I mean were females not redeemed because Christ assumed a male nature? So my first point is that I’m not sure that the statement is accurate: it at least needs serious revision.

Second, I think that theistic evolutionists [I’m not a theistic evolutionist, but noting this interesting theological tidbit] could offer an account of the atonement to take life on other planets into account. I’ll not outline it here because I’ve done so elsewhere (see here).

Finally, I think it would take only some minor tweaks to the doctrine of the atonement to account for other sentient life.